Show HN: Dealta – A game-theoretic decentralized trading protocol(github.com)
55 pointsby kalenvale3 days ago9 comments
  • nateb20223 days ago
    Your post, most of your comments here, and much of the source code looks AI generated; I get the feeling you lack sufficient understanding of what you're even trying to achieve here.

    Also regarding the code, why are you defining private?

      #define private public
    (https://github.com/Dealta-Foundation/DealtaCore/blob/e1598d3...)

    This is a massive code smell.

    • potsandpans3 days ago
      I'm sick of every top comment in every front page article being an accusation of ai generation.
      • stuartjohnson123 days ago
        I'm sick of low quality ai generation in an awful lot of front page articles.
        • nateb20223 days ago
          As am I.

          In the case of commentary, an author who uses AI to converse about "his" work indicates a fundamental misunderstanding/lack of comprehension thereof which leads to

          The case of code, where an author who is unqualified to have built a certain product himself is thereby unqualified to review AI generated code implementing said product.

          The author's post features the quotation of "Brokers", whose quotation has no logical basis except in established LLM generational norms. Furthermore the excessive colons following each feature are also typical of generated text.

          The code is not much better. As I spotted rather quickly, the

            #define private public
          is a huge code smell; for those unfamiliar with C++ or OOP it is an equivalent blunder to

            #define true false
          or

            #define while if
          And points to a pretty large disconnect between the author's ability to prompt a model and their ability to evaluate the quality of the model's response.
          • kalenvale2 days ago
            You are absolutely right! Jokes aside, i got other things to take care of. Regardless of what you believe, the code is not AI generated, vibe coded etc. Is it a quick and dirty? Yes, but from what i remember, it is purely for testing. Bad practice, for sure, no doubt, lots of workarounds. It is OOP after all. Also as i wrote, the code needs polishing, it is an alpha after all. Thanks for the audit!
          • fc417fc8022 days ago
            How does a model even end up outputting that? It goes way beyond code that's a bit buggy or convoluted. If a human did any of the above outside of a humorous context I'd consider it openly malicious.

            That said, while I'm no fan of slop I don't feel like the constant accusations of AI we now see bandied about are constructive. The general vibe at this point feels like name calling or even a witch hunt.

            Bad or lazy writing should be called out regardless of how it was produced. Same for code. I'd say that "#define private public" stands on its own as case in point; how it was arrived at seems almost entirely irrelevant.

        • 3 days ago
          undefined
  • Uptrenda3 days ago
    (1) No reason to build your own blockchain. This will only increase complexity and undermine security for no reason.

    (2) No reason not to adapt existing standards to be compatible with any of the wallets that already exist.

    (3) No reason to introduce your own wallet. How many wheels do you want to reinvent here?

    (4) No reason to invent your own currency (and in fact this makes your escrow system break completely.)

    Btw: the problem you're trying to solve has been "solved" many times over before using various escrow mechanism dating back to the gox era. The reason they all failed is because no protocol can make up for the opacity and unpredictable nature of the real world. If you think about it your solution is more like the opposite of what makes cryptocurrencies valuable: you're essentially increasing transaction costs to try "improve" the physical verifiability of goods. When normal people just use semi-trusted merchants which are faster and cheaper.

    By the sound of your protocol it would increase shipping time substantially, increase costs to buyers (I'm assuming they have to pay higher fees to pay the verifiers), and after all that it still doesn't prevent scamming. Because you never know if a verifier prefers to hold on to an item and burn all their collateral based on changing economic conditions. Maybe they end up with an expensive item that holds considerable value relative to the staked currency (which I'm again assuming that you're inventing another wheel and increasing friction even more by introducing your own currency. Not going to even bother to look.)

    Your idea resembles a more error-prone version of high-end verification markets like precious metals, gem stones, and art trading. But lacks a lot of the simple guarantees that such markets would provide.

  • reactordev3 days ago
    I took a deep dive into the code.

    I respect what you’re trying to do but this feels like a solution in search of a problem.

    The kind of markets this would tailor towards already have their own escrow management systems.

    I do, however, see this being relevant to MLS and the Housing industry. It’s a shady industry with scammy ads and “handyman special” vibes from people trying to sell legitimate and illegitimate listings.

  • mt_3 days ago
    https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/0824e5b9-7d75-45f1-87f4-3...

    This is now my favorite way to visualize these concepts in practice.

    • mt_3 days ago
      Four critique points:

      - Who wants to drive across town to inspect a €50 item for a small fee (we can draw comparison to Uber Eats like platforms fees economies)?

      - Can a random broker validate a luxury watch? Do we need another blockchain tech for broker validator skill reputation?

      - Physical validation adds days to trades, in online economy, the faster the merrier

      - Fees might price out low-value items

      Let's see how this plays out.

      • kalenvale3 days ago
        Thanks for the critique! Here’s a breakdown of the points raised:

        -Who wants to drive across town to inspect a €50 item? The focus is on mid to high-value, preferably niche items. Lower-value goods often don’t justify the costs involved in driving and the time spent on validation.

        -Can a random broker validate a luxury watch? Not all brokers have the necessary expertise to validate every item, especially luxury goods. The proposal is to enhance the current system by assigning brokers based on item categories. This specialization will be particularly effective when there are enough brokers for specific categories, such as watches.

        - Physical validation adds days to trades. While physical validation can slow things down, brokers who fail to validate effectively will phase out over time, ensuring that only those with the right expertise remain. It should be economically infeasible to accept assignment, where you have no expertise. This approach aims to streamline the validation process.

        -Fees might price out low-value items. Focusing on mid to high-value items helps avoid the issue of fees pricing out lower-value goods.

        Additionally, this idea is designed to integrate into existing niches where validation matters significantly, like trading cards, electronics, watches, and sneakers. Numerous businesses already specialize in validating these items and have the necessary expertise to navigate legal requirements.

    • gergi3 days ago
      May I ask how you generated this?
      • ProofHouse3 days ago
        AI but does it matter, no
        • ramon1563 days ago
          Thanks for sharing your opinion
  • killerstorm3 days ago
    This is just a more elaborate form of an escrow contract.

    There's absolutely no need to make a new L1 for that: you can use existing smart contract/dapp platforms, plug into existing stable coin rails, etc.

  • themantalope3 days ago
    Interesting but how would this prevent against “off-chain” collusion? A fraudulent seller captures brokers on the buy and sell side? Seller backs out of the deal unless they know who the brokers are?

    I think this kind of behavior in principle would be detectable but in principle with enough concentration in the market, a fraudulent seller could in practice get brokers and jurors to collude with them.

    • kalenvale2 days ago
      Once a trade has been initiated, sellers won't be able to back out. The seller has no control over the pseudo-random broker selection for their trade, hence can't choose a preferred broker either.
  • techsystems3 days ago
    In 3.1, rejecting (R) fraudulent (F) goods resulting in 0 for the seller is a strong assumption. There are all kinds of possible negatives (typically risks of legal fees) for storage costs of fraudulent goods in the game of hot potato. It might be worth your time to look into the literature a bit more.
    • kalenvale3 days ago
      The paper was aimed at a broader audience, which is why it simplifies some concepts and makes certain assumptions. While there are potential drawbacks to consider, it’s reasonable to assume that a seller of a fraudulent item gains nothing if the item gets rejected. In that scenario, their goal of making money wouldn’t be achieved, and any additional losses wouldn’t significantly impact the protocol. In fact it would deter fraudsters. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this!
  • kikimora3 days ago
    Why not build it on top of EVM?
    • kalenvale3 days ago
      I chose to build an L1 for several reasons. One major factor is the desire for fair currency distribution. Additionally, I wanted to ensure instant finality to prevent block reverts during trades.
      • Uptrenda3 days ago
        They chose to use an L1 for several reasons. The major factor is creating their own blockchain allows them to redistribute wealth to their own wallets. Additionally, they wanted to ensure instant finality so that no one can revert the fraud.
        • kalenvale2 days ago
          Nothing has been mined. There is no currency listing yet, not even a testnet. Funding has been rejected as well. Hope that answers your concerns.
      • kikimora3 days ago
        What in EVM smart contracts prevent any of this?
  • gigatexal3 days ago
    Heatware.com solved this years ago without all the crypto bs.
    • kalenvale2 days ago
      Heatware is reputation-based, Dealta avoids this issue.
      • gigatexal2 days ago
        Reputation gained by trading with those with high reputation … hard to game that. It’s backed by threads in FS/FT threads on forums where folks can share proof of delivery and talk about the trade etc etc. this blockchain nonsense is not needed.